Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheque – Conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Accused issued cheque for ₹5 lakh towards repayment of debt, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds – Complainant issued legal notice but cheque remained unpaid – Trial Court convicted accused, sentenced him to 6 months simple imprisonment and fine – Appellate Court upheld conviction – Revision petition filed challenging conviction on various grounds including non-service of legal notice, invalidity of bank return memo, and absence of loan entries in income tax returns or account books – Held: Conviction valid [Paras 1-5].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Presumption of Legal Liability – Sections 118 and 139 – Statutory presumption of consideration arises when signature on cheque is admitted – Presumption is rebuttable, but accused failed to rebut by preponderance of probabilities – Accused merely claimed absence of loan in complainant's accounts but offered no credible evidence – Presumption of legally enforceable liability not displaced – Conviction upheld [Paras 12-20].

Income Tax Returns – Non-reflection of Loan – Non-mention of loan in income tax returns or account books does not invalidate debt – Held: Presumption under NI Act cannot be negated solely because loan is unaccounted in tax documents – Non-disclosure may invite action under tax laws but does not defeat complainant's case under Section 138 – Support drawn from Uttam Ram vs Devinder Singh Hudan and Ganga Prashad vs Lalit Kumar [Paras 18-22].

Service of Legal Notice – Validity – Registered Notice returned unclaimed – Presumption of valid service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act applies – Non-service due to absence of accused at address does not invalidate notice – Complaint not rendered premature – Held: Accused had opportunity to pay after receiving court summons as well [Paras 23-25].

Bank Return Memo – Validity without Stamp – Section 146 NI Act – Return memo need not bear bank’s stamp if it carries official signature and branch details – Purpose is to relieve bank officers from entering witness box in every case – Return memo valid and admissible – Held: Objection to absence of stamp rejected [Paras 26-30].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limits – Revisional Court cannot re-appreciate evidence to act as second appellate court – Held: Findings of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court and affirmed by Appellate Court are based on correct appreciation of law and evidence – No jurisdictional error or perversity found – Revision dismissed [Paras 9-11, 32].

Conduct of Accused – Offer to Compound – Accused offered partial settlement post-conviction but withdrew when asked to pay fair amount considering interest since 2003 – Held: Conduct displays intent to evade liability rather than genuine defence – Supports prosecution version [Para 25].

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Conviction and sentence confirmed – Trial Court directed to issue necessary warrants to secure custody of accused for serving sentence [Para 32].
 

Matrimonial Law - Permanent Alimony – Requirement of Formal Application – Mandatory – The Trial Court awarded permanent alimony to the respondent-wife under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act without there being any formal or oral application by the wife – Held: In view of binding precedents of Madhya Pradesh High Court, including Abhishek Parashar v. Neha Parashar, it is mandatory to have an express application for claiming permanent alimony – Such application may be through a separate application or incorporated in the written statement – Absence of such application renders the award unsustainable [Paras 5-11].

Conflicting Views Harmonized – Earlier Binding Precedents Prevail – The Court clarified that although certain judgments like Rituraj Singh and Dharmendra Tiwari held that no formal application is required, these were rendered per incuriam as they did not consider earlier binding precedents such as Jitbandhan and Chhaya Kshatriya – Applying the principle of judicial discipline, the Court followed the earlier binding view requiring a formal application for permanent alimony [Paras 9-10].

Assessment of Alimony – Relevant Factors – The Court reaffirmed the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Vinny Parmar v. Paramvir Parmar, highlighting that fixing of permanent alimony requires considering the financial status of both parties, conduct, needs, and standard of living – In the present case, no such assessment was done due to absence of a proper application [Para 12].

Final Decision – Decree for Alimony Set Aside – The order granting permanent alimony (Para 17(2) of the impugned judgment) was quashed – Matter concluded by modifying the decree accordingly [Para 13].
 

Civil Law - Land Dispute – Claim of Succession – Section 171 UPZA & LR Act – Relationship Not Established – Petitioner claimed inheritance rights over land previously held by Ruda Singh – Claimed to be nephew through maternal line – Court held: No reliable documentary or oral evidence was filed to establish familial relationship – Certificate from Gram Pradhan found vague and unauthorized – Earlier order vesting land in State unchallenged for decades – Held: No succession right established [Paras 3, 14, 21, 39– 44, 56–63]. 
 
Consolidation Proceedings – Effect of Prior Orders – Order Vesting Land in State Remained Unchallenged – Despite initiation of consolidation in 1995, earlier order dated 17.09.1984 under Section 194 UPZA & LR Act vesting land in State was never properly challenged – Revision against consequential order dismissed – Consolidation authorities erred in ignoring prior final order – Deputy Director rightly rectified error [Paras 9, 26, 41–48, 55, 69–71]. 
 
Pleadings and Conduct – Suppression and Contradictory Claims – Petitioner filed multiple objections under Section 9-A(2) with inconsistent grounds—initially on succession, later on unregistered will – No evidence of will brought – Serious discrepancies in age, identity documents, signatures, and name aliases found – Execution of gift deeds soon after name entry recorded in revenue record raised suspicion – Petitioner acting as proxy for third party with history of land grabbing – Held: Petition tainted by concealment, lacks merit [Paras 24–25, 52–54, 64–68, 70]. 
 
Decision: Writ Petition Dismissed – Deputy Director of Consolidation’s order upheld – Earlier unchallenged order of land vesting in State prevails – Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer erred in granting rights to petitioner without examining credibility and prior orders – Interim order vacated – Costs made easy [Paras 69–71]. 
 
 

Motor Accident Claim – Contributory Negligence – Finding Reversed – Claimant Exonerated – Tribunal had held both the bus driver and claimant contributorily negligent (50% each) because the claimant was driving an unregistered vehicle – High Court held that absence of registration does not imply causation unless overt negligence is shown – FIR and evidence confirmed the accident was solely due to rash and negligent driving of the bus – Held: Finding of contributory negligence against appellant set aside; sole responsibility fixed on bus driver [Paras 5, 6, 9].

Compensation – Disability – Enhanced by Applying Proper Multiplier and Future Prospects – Tribunal applied a multiplier of 15 and awarded ₹90,000 for 50% disability – High Court revised it to a multiplier of 18 with 40% addition for future prospects for a 22-year-old – Loss of future earning capacity recalculated at ₹1,51,200 – Held: Tribunal erred in not awarding for future prospects; enhanced just compensation awarded [Paras 6, 10].

Non-Pecuniary Damages – Additional Heads Granted – Tribunal had not awarded any compensation for pain and suffering, special diet, attendant charges, or future medical expenses – High Court awarded ₹50,000 for pain and suffering, ₹5,000 for special diet, ₹10,000 each for attendant charges and future medical expenses – Held: Compensation must be comprehensive and fair, covering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses [Para 10].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Compensation Enhanced to ₹3,51,000 with 9% Interest – Tribunal award of ₹62,564 set aside – Compensation enhanced to ₹3,51,000 with 9% annual interest from date of award till realization – Any previously paid amount to be adjusted – Held: Appellant entitled to full compensation without deduction for contributory negligence [Paras 10–13].
 

Criminal Law – Rape - Acquittal Appeal – Scope of Appellate Interference in Acquittal – Appellate Court Reiterated Limited Scope to Interfere – The appellate court while re-appreciating the evidence must interfere only when the judgment is perverse or leads to miscarriage of justice – Court found that trial court's judgment was not perverse and based on sound appreciation of evidence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 9-14].

Kidnapping and Sexual Assault – Victim Turned Hostile – Allegation of Kidnapping and Sexual Assault Not Established – Victim (PW1) denied the allegations during trial – No independent corroboration from parents or medical evidence – Court held that the prosecution failed to prove offence under Sections 363, 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act – Acquittal upheld [Paras 16-32].

Medical Evidence – No Signs of Recent Sexual Assault – Medical Officer (PW10) opined that there were no signs suggestive of recent sexual assault – Prosecution failed to corroborate charges medically – Acquittal confirmed [Paras 30-33].

Statement Under Section 164 CrPC – Not Substantive Evidence – Court reiterated that Section 164 CrPC statement can be used only for contradiction or corroboration – Cannot solely form basis for conviction in absence of substantive evidence – Victim did not support the prosecution case – Appeal dismissed [Para 31].

Final Decision – No Error Found in Trial Court’s Appreciation of Evidence – Benefit of Doubt Rightly Given – Appeal dismissed and acquittal confirmed [Paras 34-35].

Criminal Law – Appeal against acquittal - Abetment of Suicide – Essentials of Section 306 IPC – Acquittal Upheld – The Court reiterated that mere harassment or disputes over financial transactions are insufficient to constitute abetment unless direct or indirect incitement to commit suicide is proved – The deceased had the option to seek recovery of debt legally – Absence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid by the accused – Ingredients of Section 306 IPC not satisfied [Paras 15-19].

Suicide Note – General Allegation Not Sufficient – The suicide note vaguely referred to harassment by Subhash and the police without naming any officer or detailing specific acts of abetment – No nexus between the alleged harassment and the act of suicide was established – Suicide due to loan dispute does not by itself constitute abetment [Paras 18-19].

Delay and Absence of Proof – No Evidence of Finance Business or Loan Transaction – The prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was actually running a finance business or that a loan was advanced to the accused – Absence of documentary or reliable oral evidence regarding the alleged debt transaction and threats – Defence plea of false implication accepted [Paras 18-19].

Temperament of Deceased – No Proof of Prudence or Instigation – No evidence produced by the prosecution to establish that the deceased was prudent and was compelled to commit suicide due to unbearable harassment – Suicide attributed to hypersensitivity rather than actionable abetment – Courts must be cautious to avoid penalizing routine disputes as abetment [Paras 17-19].

Final Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – No merit found in the challenge to the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court – Petition dismissed with no relief granted [Para 20].
 

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings – Serious Non-Compoundable Offences – Sections 376 IPC and U.P. Conversion Act – Quashing Denied – Application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings on the basis of compromise between accused and victim – The Court reiterated that offences involving serious crimes like rape and unlawful religious conversion cannot be quashed merely because of a compromise – Such offences have a societal impact and are not just private disputes – Held: Quashing refused, proceedings to continue [Paras 15, 19, 31-38, 47-57]. 
 
Inherent Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Limitations – Only to be Invoked in Exceptional Circumstances – The Court explained that while the High Court has wide powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., such powers must be exercised sparingly and not in cases involving heinous crimes – Compromises in such cases may be obtained by coercion or may undermine public confidence in justice delivery [Paras 17-20, 34-38, 47]. 
 
Religious Conversion and Consent – U.P. Conversion Prevention Act, 2020 – Conversion Without Free Will is Illegal – The Court highlighted that conversion for the purpose of marriage without genuine change of faith is illegal – Any such conversion prompted by coercion, allurement, or fraudulent means will not be protected by law – Held: Allegations under the U.P. Conversion Act are grave and proceedings cannot be quashed on compromise [Paras 49-56]. 
 
Compromise in Rape Cases – No Legal Sanctity – Cannot Override Public Interest – The Court firmly held that rape is an offence against society and not just an individual – Compromise or settlement between the accused and victim in rape cases cannot be a basis for quashing proceedings – Such offences must be adjudicated irrespective of any private settlement [Paras 38-45, 57]. 
 
Decision – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Dismissed – The Court dismissed the application refusing to quash the charge-sheet and proceedings on the basis of compromise, considering the seriousness of allegations involving rape and unlawful conversion [Para 57]. 
 

Arbitration Law - Stock Broker Liability – Prior Written Instructions – NSE Regulations – Regulatory Requirement Not Mandatory in Civil Claims – Client challenged arbitral award citing lack of prior written instructions for trades – Held: Requirement for prior authorisation is regulatory, not determinative of civil liability – 
Absence of authorisation cannot invalidate trades if client participated with full knowledge – Tribunal rightly considered emails, SMS alerts, fund flows, and securities transfers to affirm client’s conscious involvement [Paras 1, 11–21, 24, 27–30]. 
 
Arbitral Review – Limited Scope Under Section 34 – Findings Not Perverse – Petitioner argued award contradicted findings in first arbitral award – Court held that appellate tribunal’s conclusions were logical and based on evidence – No perversity or arbitrariness established – Interference under Section 34 not warranted [Paras 19–21, 31]. 
 
SEBI Circular – Evidentiary Guidelines – Not Substantive Law – Court interpreted SEBI’s 2018 Circular as procedural and directory – Emphasized that post-trade evidence like fund and securities movement can establish trade legitimacy in absence of prior written authorisation – Rigid interpretation would lead to inequitable consequences and allow clients to escape liability [Paras 25–29]. 
 
Commercial Conduct – Active Participation – Client Received Trade Alerts and Made Payments – Despite lack of explicit authorisation, evidence of continuous trading conduct, receipt of contract notes, transfer of securities, and lack of protest showed participation – Tribunal entitled to weigh such evidence in totality [Paras 14–18, 22, 26]. 
 
Trade Usages and Section 28(3) – Legal Recognition of Industry Practices – Tribunal rightly considered usage of securities market including trade confirmations, account settlements, and autonomous instructions – Judgment aligned with SC’s ruling in Chokshi where oral agreements and trade conduct were upheld in composite claims [Paras 33–38]. 
 
Decision: Petitions dismissed – Impugned award upheld – Petitioner liable to pay ~Rs.69.20 lakhs with 12% p.a. interest – Costs of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed on petitioner payable to respondent within 4 weeks [Paras 41–42]. 
 

Criminal Law – Murder – Conspiracy – Appeal against acquittal – Deceased, an office bearer of JDU party, murdered by accused persons due to political rivalry – Prosecution alleged conspiracy and participation of 10 accused persons – Trial court acquitted all accused – High Court, upon appeal by State and de facto complainant, found that evidence of injured eye-witnesses (PW1 and PW2) was consistent, credible, and corroborated by medical, scientific, and forensic evidence – Test Identification Parade properly conducted confirming identification of accused – Recovery of weapons and forensic linkage established guilt – Alleged mask-wearing by assailants not substantiated and wrongly accepted by trial court – Held: Conviction recorded for accused 1 to 5 under Sections 302/34 IPC – Accused 2 also convicted under Section 324 IPC and accused 4 under Section 326 IPC – Acquittal of accused 6 to 10 upheld due to insufficient evidence [Paras 1 to 58].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Injured Eye-Witnesses – PW1 and PW2 sustained injuries while trying to save deceased – Their ocular testimony corroborated by FIR, medical evidence, and scientific reports – Minor discrepancies immaterial – Injuries confirmed their presence at the scene – Identification of accused in Test Identification Parade and in court reliable – Trial court erred in disbelieving them based on alleged mention of masks in medical records – No suppression of FIR or manipulation found – Held: Trial court misdirected itself in rejecting consistent and corroborated evidence of injured witnesses [Paras 39 to 46].

Circumstantial and Forensic Evidence – Fingerprint Expert (PW71) established matching chance prints of accused 2, 4, and 5 from crime scene vehicle – DNA evidence (PW74, PW75) linked accused 2 and 4 to hair samples from vehicle – Recovery of knife (MO4) by accused 2 corroborated by post-mortem findings – Blood on knife matched with deceased – Recovery and identification processes legally valid – Trial court erroneously discarded crucial forensic evidence on technical grounds – Held: Forensic evidence fully corroborates ocular version and proves participation of accused beyond doubt [Paras 49 to 52].

Criminal Conspiracy – Lack of Proof – Allegation of conspiracy against accused 6 to 10 failed – PW7 and PW9's evidence unconvincing and contradictory – No independent corroboration linking accused 6 to 10 to conspiracy – Purchase of vehicle by accused 6 insufficient to prove conspiracy – Trial court's acquittal of accused 6 to 10 on this charge affirmed [Paras 33 to 36].

Charge Framing – Misapplication – Charges under Sections 302/34 IPC against accused 6 to 10 unjustified based on prosecution's own case – No evidence of common intention or participation in actual assault – High Court correctly excluded them from conviction for murder while maintaining acquittal [Para 37].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Acquittal of accused 1 to 5 set aside – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC confirmed – Accused 2 additionally convicted under Section 324 IPC – Accused 4 additionally convicted under Section 326 IPC – Acquittal of accused 6 to 10 upheld – Directed issuance of non-bailable warrants for arrest of convicted accused and listing for sentence hearing [Para 58].